can /g/ guess what bitrate this looks like? it's rip

all audio on youtube is 128kbps regardless of video quality

>>58369772
It's a shame they didn't opt for 320. Taken as a whole youtube is a very impressive catalog of music.

File: youtube.png (280KB, 1082x399px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 1082x399px

>>58369772
it's don't. some of them are at least 128 vorbis or something higher.

>>58369834
Oh, you like Sigur Rós too, huh? Did you watch the circumnavigation?

>>58369784
128Kb/s AAC is pretty similar in quality to 320Kb/s MP3.

>>58370374

Harder to rip too, if I understand correctly.

File: audio.png (402KB, 1400x901px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 1400x901px

>>58369702
You can't judge bitrates from spectrograms, at all.

>>58370374
It's not and there are multiple encoders to complicate matters. CBR is a waste.

>>58369772
It's not, see pic. It goes up to 160 kbps Opus which is stupidly good. Whichever quality gets used depends on the quality option you choose and container. And which container gets used depends on what your browser/app supports. Generally it chooses a format which has hardware encoding support but you can force it to do whatever.

>>58369772
higher quality videos have 160 opus i think

>>58369702
A good place to ask is >>>/g/ptg They know how to read them because private tracker autism.

>>58369702
You can't tell what bitrate it is from the spectrogram. It's not meant for that. Each encoder acts differently and the vast majority of the the spectrum is obviously dependent on the content you visualize in it, not the encoder. Without the original file it was encoded from, your question is impossible to answer.

But since you told us it's Youtube and seeing that 20 KHz hard low pass as well as 48 KHz sampling rate, that is Opus which being on Youtube means it's likely 160 kbps or alternatively 70/50 kbps on very low quality video options.

>>58371104
160k Opus is better than 192k mp4a?

>>58371348
m4a is an mp4 container with audio only. I think it can only store either AAC or ALAC audio streams. In the case of Youtube this would be AAC. AAC encoders vary greatly in terms of quality but I'll assume the one used on Youtube is very good. In a comparison between a 192k AAC and 160k Opus I would put my money on Opus, on average. Lossy encoding is almost never a clear cut choice and while usually Opus achieves better compression efficiency and transparency at a lower bitrate than any other audio codec(for high quality, full band audio), there are situations where one encoder could do better on a specific sample or situation where a lower bitrate encode with the same encoder yields better results. So if I would be ripping audio off of Youtube, I'd pick the 160k Opus because it's more likely to do better than the others.

File: 2017-01-07 spek.jpg (191KB, 611x698px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 611x698px

>>58371426
Went ahead and downloaded the webM Opus 160k vs a 192k mp4a.

>WebM
>A_OPUS codec
>2min 55s
>2.49MB
>119Kb/s

>Mp4a
>AAC
>2min 55s
>2.63MB
>126Kb/s


However after running them through a spectrum analyzer it appears as if the Mp4a has a cutoff above 15khz. Probably destroying the dynamic range. At least if we compared to source.

>>58371615
That's a cutoff at 16KHz. I can't even hear that high anymore.

http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/can-you-hear-this-hearing-test/

>>58371666
>I can't even hear that high anymore.
I can do 18-19KHz still.

20k+ is nothing but a click at the start and finish.

>>58371615
The original source was 15kHz too

File: 2017-01-07 09_17_17-Spek - Nujabes - 01 - Feather.flac.png (2MB, 1690x817px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1690x817px

>>58371810
>original source was 15kHz too
I meant the ACTUAL source

>>58371615
The cut is not going to do anything about dynamic range. Low pass will make the track sound like it has no "air" in music terms, shimmery very high frequency content is gone. However that cut is at 16 KHz, above which most content would be inaudible anyway due to upwards frequency masking and ears' very quickly lowering sensitivity to this range. Over age you will lose the ability to even hear sine tones up there.

>>58371975
I'm 24 and can still hear up to ~18KHz.

>>58372001
Just like me then. That doesn't mean you will hear sounds that high when audio band below it has content e.g. while listening to music.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_masking

Psychoacoustic coding makes use of temporal and upwards frequency masking so they can throw away precision and "bits" without potentially losing anything perceptually.